The really funny thing would be (I mean, violating human rights is never funny but bear with me) if trump wins the next election and half the democrats go to jail under this law I'm sure they are chomping at the bit to get pushed through.
The dummies don't seem to remember that they question every election they lose too.
The dummies don't seem to remember that they question every election they lose too.
Imagine there's no breakfast
It's easy if you try
No toasted oat nuts
So hungry you could die
Imagine all the people
Wishing they could eat
It's easy if you try
No toasted oat nuts
So hungry you could die
Imagine all the people
Wishing they could eat
Every law is signed with a bullet. If this isn't evidence of that, I don't know what is.
Honestly it's just another example of these companies being frauds. For all their talk of "think of the future" to greenwash to get government grants for rearranging deck chairs, there's virtually no apprenticeships out there. They want the tradesmen but they aren't willing to pay to help create them
This is what I keep telling people when they say that ChatGPT is going to replace all the programmers -- it is a verisimilitude engine, looking for the answer that looks like a correct one rather than actually the answer that is the correct one.
When the question is easier, it comes up with the right answer because that's the easiest answer to give that appears correct, but if the question is hard, it creates an answer that is wrong but looks correct.
When the question is easier, it comes up with the right answer because that's the easiest answer to give that appears correct, but if the question is hard, it creates an answer that is wrong but looks correct.
Idiots who don't know how economics works think inflation (or "greedflation" as the Pomeranian lapdog has dubbed it) is just a rise in prices, not realizing that the productivity for all that new money doesn't exist, so the choice is either higher prices or shortages.
You do die clap unt zen you do die heil Hitler unt zen you shame zee dissenters unt zen you BUILD ZEE CAMPS!
Vait zet vas eine secret!
Vait zet vas eine secret!
A friend of mine who grew up in China told me about these 3 wheel electric cars that could carry 2 people and a bit of cargo that all kinds of people would drive around when he was in high school. It meant more people had personal transportation, and because they were small and not meant for use on highways, they used very little material and didn't need overwhelming amounts of batteries so were relatively inexpensive and didn't need special measures to charge. Some people even started businesses driving people around a taxi service sort of thing.
Soon the government caught wind of it and cracked down on it since only driving around expensive looking cars maintained china's "face".
Something like this is a solution to several problems at once. Many people don't have personal transportation at all, and this would provide them with something they can afford. Just like hybrids, it wouldn't require overwhelming electrical infrastructure and depending on how they're built you could potentially carry spare batteries so you might not need to charge remotely.
But just like with hybrids being a solution they don't care about because it can enable improvement while actually helping people's quality of life, it seems like electric city cars aren't an option either. The only option they're interested in is returning to feudalism where the poor live in mud huts and the rich live in castles surrounded by the best of everything.
Soon the government caught wind of it and cracked down on it since only driving around expensive looking cars maintained china's "face".
Something like this is a solution to several problems at once. Many people don't have personal transportation at all, and this would provide them with something they can afford. Just like hybrids, it wouldn't require overwhelming electrical infrastructure and depending on how they're built you could potentially carry spare batteries so you might not need to charge remotely.
But just like with hybrids being a solution they don't care about because it can enable improvement while actually helping people's quality of life, it seems like electric city cars aren't an option either. The only option they're interested in is returning to feudalism where the poor live in mud huts and the rich live in castles surrounded by the best of everything.
Anti-asbestos people are pro-fire. If only our homes were made out of strong, fireproof asbestos! 180,000 people per year die in fires, and in spite of this, the pro-fire crowd continues to push their racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic agenda! In the 30 years since asbestos was banned, as many as 6 million preventable deaths from fire have occurred, and that's all on the shoulders of the pro-fire lobby. #asbestosisnotover
(Just having some fun)
(Just having some fun)
Anyone else remember when Twitter was supposed to have gone permanently dark by now because all those employees were totes important an critical to running a website?
I just made chatgpt go full angrily soyjack by proposing the bank of Japan, which owns over 50% of Japanese government debt just finish the job buying 100% of Japanese government debt then have the legislature dissolve the debt, ending a 22 trillion yen per year debt service cost which is more money than the Japanese government has been in deficit for most of the past 15 years.
"Noooooooo you can't just make the debt disappear and balance the budget and save some money for rainy days every year to prevent going into debt again!!!"
Full leftist meme wall of text mode. Lmfao
"Noooooooo you can't just make the debt disappear and balance the budget and save some money for rainy days every year to prevent going into debt again!!!"
Full leftist meme wall of text mode. Lmfao
I can absolutely believe that. Throw the right platitudes out without crossing the line into actually advocating anything, then you can say something two different people interpret two completely different ways.
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I remember one election in the 2000s, and one of the things I said was "the worst thing a politician can ever do is actually tell you what they plan to do; if you don't say anything people can imagine whatever policy they want in your words. If you say what you're going to do then they can disagree with it".
I made a bit of a mistake referring to it. The actual phrase is "one screen, two movies" referring to a pop politics idea that there's a disconnect between different political factions and despite living in the same world they're seeing completely different things. It seems to me that this would be a natural consequences of the rejection of an idea of objective facts, so instead of learning what data everyone has and trying to come up with a truth that integrates all the facts you have one sides subjectively held facts and the other sides subjectively held facts and you can never agree on anything because you can't even start from a remotely common data set.
So the modern skeptic question is "how do I know I exist", and one response to that was "I think therefore I am", but the postmodern extrapolation of that appears to be "I think therefore I am therefore I am whatever I think and so is everything else because I can't actually count on anything else objectively speaking"
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?
And the danger of this becoming a major cultural force that's separate from standard modern liberal conception of individualism is that postmodern radical individualism that doesn't even agree that objective facts exist which contributes to the "two screens" problem we've got.
Am I on the right track?